Paul Stenquist replied to my message about art definitions:
"That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works hanging on the walls of the world's museums."
Agreed. We could also debate whether a great many of those works are actually art. <G>
"Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos."
That's an interesting thought. An image can definitely do that. Can an image that does so be considered art? Those who support the Mapplethorpe type confrontational art would probably say that it can. I'm not so sure.
"It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear."
The ambiguity definition is the most interesting to me and it's probably why I wrote the message asking the question. That requirement is IMO the most challenging to us as photographers. I love the idea of ambiguity but it isn't easy to pull off in nature photography. After thinking about it for a while, I've come to realize that the art that I personally find most interesting does have some ambiguity to it. I definitely believe that art should cause the viewer to pause and think. Ambiguity is definitely something I want to explore in my work.
"And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art."
I have a lot of images that I love but I wouldn't call them art. They're beautiful to look at but I don't know if there's anything there beyond the eye candy. My opinion is that an image has to be more than eye candy to be considered art.
"If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic."
Agreed.
Thanks for the reply Paul. I appreciate your different point of view.
Tom Reese
